Did you deliberately change "in tent" to unicorn? Or has someone been messing with you?

CyberedElf

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:14 am

Veteran

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:52 amPosts: 226

It amuses me. Sometimes I take rules discussion of this game too seriously. As a personal resolution to avoid that, I will endeavor to always use the word "unicorn" when I mean unicorn. Unfortunately, I have an awful memory, so we shall see if I remember it in the next conversation.

_________________

harvestmouse

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:33 am

Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pmPosts: 440

As your questions are not circular, I'll ignore the unicorn reference just this once. Clearly I am not happy with the post that comes from and I am not interested in heated nor personal arguments/debates.

I'll first reiterate (yes circular) about GW of the 80s. It was a less professional company, but certainly more imaginative. The company had a feel and a way of doing rules. This was firstly to imagine what the situation would be (if it were real) and then replicate that as best they could with a turn based game. They went to great lengths for us to understand the thinking behind the rules.

So from what JJ wrote, let's get in his head and imagine the situation.

Fargus the troll looks down and sees Bobo the Gobo waving frantically and shouting 'throw me, throw me!' He picks him up, raises him and then thinks 'Why have I got this goblin in my hand again?' Suddenly his eyes widen, his mouth opens and he starts to bring Bobo to his gobbo.

This is the situation up to and including the neg trait Always hungry roll fail. However what happens next.

Bobo the Gobo thinks 'Hang on, he should be drawing me back to luzz me down field.' Now Bobo the Gobo isn't that stupid. He's been warned about Fargus by his mates, and seen something similar on Cablevision, he looks round to see an opening cavern that is Fargus the trolls mouth getting closer. The stench and the saliva stretching from the one top to the one bottom tooth in Fargus' incredibly large and approaching mouth is enough for Bobo the Gobo to come to a decision. 'Abort, abort....ejector seat time.'

And this is when that second roll is made. The troll doesn't make any change of action, therefore isn't rolling another dice. It's the goblin who will attempt to perform the 'wriggle or squirm' free action. So surely JJ's intetion is that the goblin makes the roll. (If it were important to know who was making the roll, which is wasn't).

Now here's where I get unpopular and if any BBRC member does get involved, where I lose the debate. So since 3rd edition, no mechanical part of the rule has changed. The only way it has changed was due to the introduction of Big Guy and then that being replaced by loner. So why did the BBRC change the wording, and if they meant to change the intent of the roll, why wasn't it clarified and validated?

If so, was it the place of the BBRC to change the intent (when there isn't a good reason to change the intent of the rule), I say no, this wasn't the place of the BBRC. What the BBRC brought, was a more professional and polished version of the game. In no way should they be meddling with the intent of the great man (when it isn't necessary). That being said it's not clear they meant to confuse things due to the dropped clause.

"It is your assumption that the intention remained the same."

It's my assumption things remain the same, unless I am told they have changed. How has the intention changed? Why has it changed? The mechanics haven't changed. The imaginary situation with Fargus and Gobo haven't changed. So why has the intention changed? Why was the 'squirm' clause dropped? Is it gamebreaking for the goblin to make the roll? I can't think of any other situation (if it were the troll making the roll) where the player (Fargus) wants to fail. So he (controlled by you) then rerolls that, even though Fargus wouldn't actually want to. A roll where the player and the coach wish for a different result. This isn't rerolling a failed neg-trait, this is rerolling an action. For me, that isn't intuitive if it were the troll's roll.

"Rules/mechanics do change when there is a substantive change in wording. The change in wording was unintentional."

Was the change in wording unintentional? I guess only Galak can answer that. It's not so much a change in word, rather than the dropped clause (the squirming clause). If it were unintentional to change the intent of the rule by dropping the clause, surely it should still work the same? If not, for me that's anal rules lawyering, when the situation isn't changed.

"You appear to acknowledge that the CRP rules as written make it more likely that it is the troll rolling."

Conceded, yes 'more' likely than if the squirm clause wasn't dropped.'The rest of this appears to be, "If it is not clear to me why a rule was changed, I am free to ignore the change.".'

It's not clear to me why the rule was changed nor if the intent was to change the rules. I am not alone here, otherwise we wouldn't have this topic.

"The words are the rules and the rules are the words."

The words are the thoughts of the person writing the rules. The rules are what is in the person's head. How it is described is the person's ability to put thoughts on to paper. It's incredibly sad to use the 'That's how I'll play it, because that's what you wrote.' argument. However without clarification that is what is practical with people picking up the rules without knowledge of the intent. Even so..........it's not 100% clear to me reading that rule that it's the troll making the roll. Due to it not being a intuitive action. The dropped 'squirm' clause is the intuitive action and what coaches that don't live by every letter of every word in every sentence of the rules would intuitively think is the way to interpret the meaning behind what was is written.

CyberedElf

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:03 am

Veteran

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:52 amPosts: 226

harvestmouse wrote:

'The rest of this appears to be, "If it is not clear to me why a rule was changed, I am free to ignore the change.".'[/i]

It's not clear to me why the rule was changed nor if the intent was to change the rules. I am not alone here, otherwise we wouldn't have this topic.

Not speaking of the current thread, but there are stupid questions, stupid answers and stupid people. The existence of opposing views does not prove that all views should be weighed equally.

harvestmouse wrote:

"The words are the rules and the rules are the words."

The words are the thoughts of the person writing the rules. The rules are what is in the person's head. How it is described is the person's ability to put thoughts on to paper. It's incredibly sad to use the 'That's how I'll play it, because that's what you wrote.' argument. However without clarification that is what is practical with people picking up the rules without knowledge of the intent.

You make a valid point. The idealized rules are what is in the designer's head. We have to play with the body of work that is the public rules. I am an anal rules-lawyer. I do not find it "incredibly sad;" I find it completely practical to to suggest people play the game by the public rules. That knowledge of multiple previous editions of the rules and how they evolved is needed to interpret the current rules is incredibly sad to me. (No disrespect intended to any designer/writer/editor.)

harvestmouse wrote:

Even so..........it's not 100% clear to me reading that rule that it's the troll making the roll. Due to it not being a intuitive action. The dropped 'squirm' clause is the intuitive action and what coaches that don't live by every letter of every word in every sentence of the rules would intuitively think is the way to interpret the meaning behind what was is written.

Not all mechanics of this game are intuitive (interception, for example). That line of argument is not persuasive to me. I do tend to live by every letter of every word, so I can't judge how someone else would intuitively interpret the rules.

To some extent you have convinced me. If what you say of previous editions is true, which I will accept, then you may be correct about original desire. I believe it is possible to judge original desire without direct word from authority, but it remains inconclusive. In my personal lexicon I would call it a house rule when you believe the original desire is distinct from the written rule. The only linchpin I still see is that you have to assume that every time the rules were changed, the author was unaware of the ramifications and interactions. The order of events that you described suggests that is possible. I can also see the possibility that ramifications were known and accepted without all thoughts and justifications being made public.

_________________

hutchinsfairy

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:14 am

Experienced

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pmPosts: 115

CyberedElf wrote:

The idealized rules are what is in the designer's head. We have to play with the body of work that is the public rules.

Nailed it.

I would add emphasis to the fact that we have to play with the public rules, anything else would be a farce.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be a spectator for a game of BB where each player was free to change the rules depending on their best guess at what the game designer was thinking when he or she wrote them. It would be quite the spectactle.

Even if the written rules have unintended consequences, they are still the rules until someone changes them (errata, FAQ etc). An example would be that when a Ball & Chain fails a Go For It they still get to roll Block dice before falling over. This was not the original mythical-monohorned-monster of the designers (Galak at least) but is a consequence of the rules as written.

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Wow ... I never caught that ... but I'd have to agree with it looking at the rules.

A Fanatic can GFI and even if he fails he still moves and blocks first if applicable before eating dirt from the failed GFI.

Unless I'm missing a rule ... the fact that the Fanatic makes only a Move action that has Blocks during it would mean the normal GFI rules would apply.

Went and looked at the exact wording in BB2016. You cannot play with intent ... you have to go with what is written.

The key phrase here is:"a second 1 means that they successfully scoff the team-mate down"

When you take this phrase in conjunction with the skill being applied during the Troll's action phase ... it is my ruling that the Troll is making the roll and that Loner would apply. The troll is trying to successfully eat the Goblin ... its just difficult to do and takes a roll of 1 for it to happen. The text is clear to me that it is a not a roll made by the Goblin to get free with the current wording. The word successfully in the description drives home the "who" is making the roll.

If it was the goblin making the roll ... the text would say "on a second 1, the team-mate fails to squirm free and is scoffed down by the player" and "If the second roll is 2-6, the team-mate successfully squirms free"

But the text of the rule is not written from the stance of the team-mate making the roll for success or failure ... but from the player (ie Troll) trying to succeed by eating the team-mate.

So my ruling on this if I was referee would be that the Troll is making the 2nd roll as well and thus Loner would apply.

_________________Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers

harvestmouse

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:28 am

Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pmPosts: 440

So why did you change the wording? By doing so you have changed a rule and the intention behind the rule. I can understand if it were broken, but... yeah whatever.

GalakStarscraper

Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:25 am

Godfather of Blood Bowl

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 amPosts: 15870Location: Indiana, USA

harvestmouse wrote:

So why did you change the wording? By doing so you have changed a rule and the intention behind the rule. I can understand if it were broken, but... yeah whatever.

I'd honestly have to start researching through LRB versions to see when it changed in wording. That would need to be done before I could answer why (as in ... I'd need to see if it was me or not that did it).

So I don't know the why ... but I do know how it now reads.

_________________Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers

LRB 1.3:"On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate player! Roll the D6 again,a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the other player down, with obviously fatal results for the latter."

LRB 1.9:"On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate teammate! Roll the D6 again,a second 1 means the he successfully scoffs the team-mate down, with obviously fatal results for the latter"

LRB 4:"On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate player! Roll the D6 again,a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the other player down, with obviously fatal results for the latter."

LRB 5:"On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate team-mate! Roll the D6 again,a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the team-mate down, which kills the team-mate without opportunity for recovery"

CRP:"On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate team-mate! Roll the D6 again,a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the team-mate down, which kills the team-mate without opportunity for recovery"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum